This doesn’t make sense to me either. Why are we assuming he’s a bad parent? Because he had an affair? Also, why would a sister make a better parent (particularly one who may not be able to keep the kids in the style they’re used to living in)?
Only gay and texting. We keep separate residences, duh.
Gestalt, nice. You obviously didn’t read the thread where it said that her inheritance was split between the 3 kids with the oldest daughter as executor. 60 mil is seemingly enough to keep them in their current lifestyle.
Okay fine but why should she sue for custody? Why should the kids be taken away from the biological father?
I think the conclusion is more along the lines that he’s a bad person - one who was willing to spin a web of self-serving lies with no regard for the damage this would do to others. And it’s not unreasonable to think that a contemptible man might make a bad parent.
I was wondering that as well. He has plenty of his own money, presumedly he plans to pass some of that on to their 4 children. He doesn’t need hers. For all we know it was something they discussed ahead of time, as the best way to transfer wealth to their children. They are lawyers after all.
It doesn’t really matter if he’s a bad person, unless “bad” means he goes around breaking laws. The courts in this country don’t take kids away from their parents unless they show such a level of incompetence that they are a danger to their children.
Besides, the kids just lost their mother. Family courts’ primary focus is to act in the best interest of the children. I hardly think forcibly removing them from the father that they’ve lived with most of their lives would be in their best interest. Even if he is engaged to a floozy.
This just shows how people think
John Edwards lost the presidental bid, the day his wife had cancer. Popular opinion was that he should quit and spend the remaining years with his wife.
That is the nice romantic idealistic way life should be. And there is no reason he couldn’t have.
The man cheated on his sick wife. No one is defending this, but at the same time one character flaw doesn’t necessarily carry over to all areas of a person’s life.
It’s like the old saying, “If he’ll lie about one thing, he’ll lie about anything.” That is blatantly false. Life is full of degrees. Lies have degrees. There are big lies and small meaningless lies.
That marriage was long since over. We don’t know when it really ended. We see him remarry almost immediately after his wife dies and get mad. It does make one wonder. But that marriage could’ve been, in reality, over for years and years.
Oddly enough some women didn’t like Hillary Clinton because she stuck by Bill Clinton instead of divorcing him. I would’ve dumped him, but Hillary chose not to dump him. It’s her choice, right or wrong.
Same here.
People cheat on each other, it happens more than you think.
Let’s look at it from John Edwards view. He cheated, lied and got caught. His political career is over. He loves this new woman (let’s assume so) and so why should he wait. Is it going to make anyone who hates him now, like him better if he waited?
And even if it did so what? It’s not like he’s going to go back into politics. He’s been effectively booted out of the public eye and this makes him yesterday’s news.
And while everyone is entitled to his/her opinon and certainly is entitled to express it don’t forget this “news” is meaningless in the large scope now as he’s a private citizen.
If you want to get riled up about something, save it for something you can actually DO something about. Like crime in your city, or trash pick up, or lack of affordable health/dental care, or taxes or reapportionment or whatever
I am not offended by the idea of John Edwards raising Elizabeth’s children. I am offended by the idea of RIELLE HUNTER raising Elizabeth’s children. Sorry, the happy homewrecker should not win out, with the “fairy tale ending” she was rhapsodizing on about in GQ last year while she was waiting around for the cancer to take Elizabeth down. No way, no how. If I were one of those kids, I’d INSIST on living with my older sister if my dad insisted on bringing Rielle in as a replacement mom.
And I’m glad to hear that Elizabeth very wisely left all her money and property to her children. This way, her 3 kids get to split $60million, arguably enough for them to be set for life. She was a savvy and classy lady to handle things the way she did, IMO.
If she hadn’t done this, John would have inherited the $60million, comingled it with his own fortune, and then if he marries Rielle, SHE inherits 50% of it upon his death, and is not required to leave it to anyone except Frances Quinn in the event that she dies.
This way, Elizabeth’s kids get a 1/3 share of her estate, plus (assuming Edwards remarries and leaves his new wife 50% and divides the rest between 4 kids) another 1/8 of their dad’s estate in the future.
Not too shabby, and it keeps all of the family heirlooms out of Rielle’s hands as an added bonus.
No, the other daughter shouldn’t sue for custody. That’s ridiculous.
He’s the father and there’s no evidence he’s an unfit parent.
Should he get married right now? Probably not. He’s dealing with a lot, and he should give himself and his kids time to grieve and adjust (he is almost certainly grieving. No matter how the marriage ended, it’s an ending and endings cause grief for most people). But it’s none of my business and certainly not cause for his children to be taken away. What a stupid idea.
As long as their FATHER, John, isn’t offended by the idea of Rielle Hunter raising HIS children, it doesn’t matter if you (or I) are offended. His children cannot choose to live with their sister because the courts won’t give them that choice. He is their parent and his rights trump everyone else’s because their other parent is now deceased.
This thread is about expressing your opinions on the subject. Everyone in this thread knows that they don’t actually have the legal right to tell these people what to do. That doesn’t preclude them from having an opinion.
It seems people have conflated “Mind your own business” with “Don’t have an opinion about anything that doesn’t directly concern you.” They aren’t the same. No one is not minding their own business by discussing what they think.
And, yes, as far as I am concerned, if you have such poor impulse control as to have an affair, and refuse to fess up to it when you get caught, there is an implication that you are putting your own needs above those of your children’s, and you should lose the automatic assumption that you, as a biological parent, are indeed a good parent. I know the law doesn’t work that way, but I wish it did.
This, from a recluse who never leaves the house, is a virgin and has never had a relationship.
Thanks for the help.
If the law worked that way, you’d seriously choose their 20 year old sister over their own father to raise these kids? Honestly, that just boggles my mind. As hurt and angry as I’d be at my husband were he to ever leave me for another woman, I hope I’d have the maturity to want our children to continue having a close, great relationship with their dad. After all, the only person who loves them and wants what’s best for them as much as I do, is him. And that love is independent of his love for me.
The sister is a practicing attorney and is 28, not 20. The kids are 10 and 12 - they could very well be her own children, at 16 and 18 years apart. I am more of an aunt or guardian to my youngest brother who is 8 years younger than me than a sibling; if my parents were to both die in an accident, I would be his legal guardian. Our housekeepers’ kids are 17 years apart and her daughters very much so have a aunt-niece relationship than a sibling one.
It’s completely reasonable - and it happens all the time - where the non biological parents are the primary caregivers for the child. It’s naive to think the nuclear family or the biological parents are the best providers of care anymore.
I am not arguing the law should step in or family services or anything. I wish that Edwards had the human decency to allow his older daughter to raise the younger kids. Benefits would be the kids get a stable home environment from the daughter and her spouse while he can play house with his new family.
Why are you assuming he’s a bad parent, or that his kids would be better off with their sister? Because he had an affair and was reluctant to admit it? Should every parent who has had an affair lose custody of their children?
The older daughter is getting married this year to a doctor.
I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that Edwards should lose custody of his children, willingly or no. I do see that his kids have just lost their mom and would probably feel utterly abandoned if they then lost their dad, too.
Until I see major evidence to the contrary, I will assume that he loves his kids and cares about their welfare a million times more than anyone in this thread does.
Absolutely true.
I can’t stand the man myself, but what you say is true.
(Bolding mine). You’ve made my point here already: you say you would be the guardian of your brother if both your parents died. Why not if only one died? Presumably because the other parent would carry on caring for him unless they were completely unable or unsuitable (by which I mean seriously ill or abusive, not just disapproved of by random people on the internet).
My dad had an affair (after I was an adult) which resulted (speaking very simplistically) in my parents’ divorce. Both parents behaved in ways that hurt me at times during the divorce, but my Dad is still my Dad. There is nothing that can change that and some marital infidelity doesn’t even come close to cancelling out the years of nothing but love and unconditional support he has shown for me.
You’re assuming a lot here. You’re assuming the younger kids hate their only remaining parent and actively don’t want to live with him. You’re assuming two people in their twenties at the start of very demanding careers have the time, money and willingness to take on reponsibility for two grieving preteens (who already have a father who is responsible for them). You’re assuming that the younger kids would prefer this over the current arrangement and that the only reason it’s not happening is their father’s “selfishness”.
Some of your assumptions may be right, but you can’t know that. Personally, as a married 30 year old still quite early in my career, I would not be eager to take that burden on - I would do it if the children were orphaned and there was no other choice, but not if their father were still alive. Its too much responsibility, would not be in the kids best interest and would be the death of my career (and put a huge amount of pressure on my marriage). And as the daughter of an unfaithful father, I would have very strong words for anyone who tried to tell me I shouldn’t still love my Dad or that he is any less my father because of his actions. YMMV, but so may theirs.